Immigration/Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants
(Student’s Full Name)
Immigration/Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants
Introduction
Illegal immigration has been at the center of controversy for many years in US politics. However, there have been different solutions presented to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. These differing solutions have been presented to the public with the help of media outlets, such as FOX News and CNN. Furthermore, it should be noted that when US citizens get “their news from CNN” the views expressed on this media outlet did not in any way influence “pro- and anti-immigration attitudes” (Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012, p. 608). On the other hand, when individuals watch FOX News they are “less likely” to “support Mexican immigration” (Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012, p. 608). In addition, findings from a study conducted by Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, and Valenzuela (2012) indicate that the news reported on FOX News still had the ability to allow even “liberal Democrats” to develop “more anti-immigrant attitudes than liberal Democrats” who did not watch the conservative media news outlet (p. 610). It should be noted that the study acknowledged that the news presented on FOX News had an effect on people’s attitudes towards immigration irrespective of education and income levels. An analysis of the CNN article “Immigration crisis on is a political conundrum” and the Fox News article “Immigration amnesty passes House” appears to concur with the findings of the study done by Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, and Venezuela (2012). Based on this analysis, it can be argued that the news outlet, CNN, does little to to shape an individual’s attitude towards immigration or amnesty since the news outlet generally provides two opposing views and allows the audience to decide which viewpoint she will support. On the other hand, FOX News, which appears to share mainly conservative views, will definitely have an impact on a person’s perspective on immigration or amnesty by allowing this person to have an anti-immigration or anti-amnesty stance.
Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian-American, who “created FOX Broadcasting Company in 1986” (Biography.com Editors, n.d., para. 1). According to its website, FOX News Channel is a “24-hour all-encompassing news service” (“FOX News Channel,” n.d., para. 1). This news outlet is committed to presenting its audience with “breaking,” “political,” and “business news” (“FOX News Channel,” n.d., para. 1). Furthermore, its website mentions that it has been the “most watched news channel in the country for ten years” (“FOX News Channel,” n.d., para. 1). In addition, it notes that “Public Polling Policy” considers it to be the “most trusted television news source in the country” (“FOX News Channel,” n.d., para. 1).
Ted Turner created Cable News Network (CNN), which he launched in 1980. At the time, it was the “first 24-hour cable news network” (Biography.com Editors, n.d., para. 1). On its website, CNN declares that it is “among the world’s leaders in online news and information delivery” (“About CNN.com,” n.d., para. 1). CNN’s international headquarters is located in Atlanta, Georgia. It has a “global team” which is made up of nearly “4,000 news professionals” (“About CNN.com,” n.d., para. 1).
Analysis of News Articles found on CNN.com and FOXNEWS.com
An assessment of the CNN.com article entitled, “Immigration crisis is a political conundrum,” shows that the news outlet is committed to providing both viewpoints related to the issue of immigration or amnesty. For instance, the article written by Tom Cohen shows the differing perspectives of the Democrats and Republicans on the issue. Cohen (2014) explains that there was an “urgent humanitarian situation” that was being created in Texas with “Central American children illegally crossing the border” into the state (para. 2). The Republicans support the idea that a “2008 law that requires immigration hearings from countries” other than Mexico and Canada “who arrive at the border on their own” (Cohen, 2014, para. 24). This plan would permit children to “request” a hearing, which would have to occur “within 72 hours” (Cohen, 2014, para. 25). It appears as if Republicans would like the children to have their case presented to an immigration judge and to have their cases settled as soon as possible, and possibly leave the country in the same timeframe as well. However, the Democrats disagree with this “proposal” because they believe that “72 hours was insufficient time for people seeking asylum from endemic violence and other social ills” in their home countries to present their case to an “immigration judge” (Cohen, 2014, para. 27). It is because of this reason that the Democrats are calling the Republican-supported plan “inhumane” (Cohen, 2014, para. 27).
It can be argued that CNN’s presentation of both perspectives of issues, such as immigration and amnesty, allows an individual to not be compelled into accepting a particular viewpoint. It should be acknowledged that Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, and Valenzuela (2012) explain that being “exposed to CNN had no relationship whatsoever on the attitudes people hold against Mexican immigrants and immigration” (p. 610). Therefore, it can be inferred that when CNN is presenting views, such as amnesty and immigration, the news media outlet follows “notions of objectivity” and presents “impartial information to the audience” and reports in a “balanced manner” when delivering the news (Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012, p. 610).
On the other hand, FOX News’s presentation of the issue of immigration appears to be different compared to that of CNN. In Kelly Beaucar Vlahos (2002) published on the FOX News’s website, the author of the article clearly takes a stance that does not support immigration and is anti-amnesty. Vlahos (2002) writes that despite “calls to tighten the country’s immigration laws” after the 9/11 attacks, “House leaders” “pushed through a bill that would allow some illegal immigrants” to remain in the US while “their residency paperwork is being processed” (para. 1). Vlahos (2002) mentions that a “border security bill” was attached to that bill. However, in doing that, she acknowledges that Senator Robert Byrd, who is a Democrat representing West Virginia, has been “blocking the border security bill in the Senate” (Vlahos, 2002, para. 4). Byrd contends that senators should be given the opportunity to “debate and amend the bill before voting on it” (Vlahos, 2002, para. 4). Nevertheless, Vlahos (2002) mentions that spokesman Tom Gavin indicated the fact that a “combined immigration-security bill” will still be resisted by Byrd (para. 4). Furthermore, Vlahos (2002) mentions that the “immigration” section of the bill “would extend the deadline” of many “illegal immigrants” so that they can apply resident status without going outside of the US (para. 11).
There appears to be no attempt made by the writer to offer the arguments made by the Democrats explaining why they are opposed to the border security bill and in favor of amnesty. Vlahos (2002) appears to be mainly focusing on the negative aspects of implementing amnesty rather than including a balanced presentation of the positive aspects, such as “‘keeping families together’” and make the US a “‘more welcome society’” (qtd. in Vlahos, 2002, para. 9). Hence, it can be said that this assessment is in alignment with the findings of Gil de Zúñiga, Correa, and Valenzuela (2012), which indicates that being “purposively exposed to FOX News” was linked to “negative, anti-immigration attitudes” (p. 610).
Conclusion
In conclusion, CNN presents both sides of the arguments surrounding issues, such as immigration and amnesty, so that the views presented in their report are balanced and fair. Additionally, presentation of the issues in such a manner ensures that a particular viewpoint is not being forced on the audience. On the other hand, FOX News appears to focus on issues, such as amnesty and immigration from the perspective of the Conservative movement rather than present a balanced perspective. This has the tendency of influencing the attitudes of the audience to side with the viewpoint being espoused by the news media outlet.
Works Cited
“About CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://edition.cnn.com/about>.
Biography.com Editors. “Rupert Murdoch’s biography.” Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://www.biography.com/people/rupert-murdoch-9418489>.
Biography.com Editors. “Ted Turner’s biography.” Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://www.biography.com/people/ted-turner-9512255>.
Cohen, Tom. “Immigration crisis is a political conundrum.” CNN. Cable News Network, 18 July 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/16/politics/immigration/index.html>.
“Fox News Channel | Corporate Information | Company Info.” Fox News. FOX News Network. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://www.foxnews.com/about/company/>.
Vlahos, Kelley Beaucar. “Immigration amnesty passes House | Fox News.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 13 Mar. 2002. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/03/13/immigration-amnesty-passes-house.html>.
Zúñiga, Homero Gil De, Teresa Correa, and Sebastian Valenzuela. “Selective exposure to cable news and immigration in the U.S.: The Relationship between FOX News, CNN, and Attitudes toward Mexican Immigrants.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56.4 (2012): 597-615. Web. 2 Mar. 2016. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/homero.gil.de.zuniga/documents/Gil%20de%20Z%C3%BA%C3%B1iga,%20Correa%20&%20Valenzuela%20(2012)%20Journal%20of%20Broadcast%20&%20Electronic%20Media%2056(4)%20597-615.pdf.
